Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Ron Paul,Gary Weiss and The Real Ayn Rand,Zionist Fascist and Racist

Ron Paul,Gary Weiss and The Real Ayn Rand,Zionist Fascist

Since posting this blog I came across an aspect of Ayn Rand's life that unfortunately explains moree about her allure to right wing fascists and con artists of every stripe from Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Zionist stock fraud con artist and 'business' reporter Gary Weiss to virtually all Ludwig Von Mises 'libertarians' to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and sooooo many more:

There’s something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be as hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population who thought like this, but the US is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude?

It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who plays Charlie to the American right-wing’s Manson Family. Read on and you’ll see why.

One reason why most countries don’t find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of “ideal man” that Rand promoted in her more famous books — ideas which were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America’s most recent economic catastrophe — former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox — along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

'But his( South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's)career took a dramatic turn after he heard James Dale Davidson, founder of the National Taxpayers Union, give what Sanford recalls as an "apocalyptic" speech about excessive government spending. Sanford decided to run for Congress, pledging to end the deficit, eschew pay hikes and serve only three terms.' - Dec 01, 2008 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

..........................................

The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate “entitlement programs” increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked “Atlas Shrugged” as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after The Bible.

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation — Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street — on him.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”(The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s favorite book — he even makes his clerks learn it.)..........

................

Ron Paul, "Ayn Rand" and "The Trust"

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Ron Paul, like Alan Greenspan, was heavily influenced by the Russian Jewess "Ayn Rand".
"Rand" was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia,
in 1905. I became acquainted with Rosenbaum's subversive activities
while battling against one of the most ardent modern proponents of her
philosophies, a radical Zionist Jew who many years ago proposed the
nuclear annihilation of Iran, and who defended Einstein's reputation
with falsehoods and smears.
"Ayn Rand" came to America from Russia presenting herself as if a radical anti-Communist. Hers was the typical modus operandi of Bolshevik operatives working for an official Soviet organization known as "The Trust".
These agents, many of them crypto-Jews, came to the West in search of
anti-Communists and infiltrated anti-Communist organizations and Western
intelligence agencies. Their objective was to forward the interests of
Communism by creating a controlled opposition to Communism which would
serve the interests of the Communists while pretending to fight them.
They also subverted all authentic anti-Communist movements..........
http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-ayn-rand-and-trust.html

google 'ayn rand kennedy nasser lumumba'

'ayn rand israel'

If you google 'jim garison ayan rand' you will see certain kennedy
assassination writers claim he was a big fan of Ayn Rand.However they
all appear to be Jewish and so far haven't seen a direct comment of
praise of her by him.The Zionist Ayan Rand who was not a Semite at all
but a Jewish Russian racist also mentions Patrice Lumumba as well as the
Egyptian leader Nasser in her tirade against John Kennedy shortly
before both are assassinated.The ex CIA murderer and money launderer
Frank Carlucci who was in and around the Congo 'coincidentally' and at
the U.S. Embassy there at the time of Lumumba's murder is more recently a
war profiteeer as former head of Bush and bin Laden family connected
Carlyle military industril corportation and has been dirctly connected
to stock fraud against his fellow Americans in the Technion Israeli
penny stock fraud called Pluristem that National Taxpayers Union and CIA
connected Agora Inc of Baltimore and internet fraud founder James Dale
Davidson has also been part of.

Ex Businessweek 'reporter' Gary Weiss who recently wrote a disinfo book
about Ayan Rand to 'correct' Ron Paul's followers supposed
misconceptions about her did a piece about the 'mafia on wall street' in
the 1990's.However it was also a disinfo series that was to make you
belive all the criminals were Italians when in fact they were or for the
most part still are Jewish.

Gary Weiss has apparently found aiding and abetting stock fraud a more
lucrative 'business' than investigatng stock fraud.His most obvious but
undoubtedly not only involvement with stock fraud money launderers is
with his Jewish pals Sam Antar of Crazy Eddie stock fraud infamy who
used Israel among other countries to launder stolen money in the 1980's
as well as Barry Mankow a Jew who ran a scam called ZZZ Best until he
was convicted and found Jesus.Ha.He then began shorting stocks that he
claimed to be exposing for the frauds they were along with Antar with
Gary Weiss help.Where they get the money when they to short stocks when
they should still owe every penny and more to those who they defrauded
only Jesus or Yawe or whatever only knows.

Gary Weiss actually openly aids and abets stock fraud and was allowed to
edit, or more accurately censor,Wikipedia criticism of my biography of
National Taxpayers Union and Agora Inc founder James Dle Davidson while
he,(Gary Weiss),was employed by Steve Forbes 'Forbes' business magazine
or digital rag. This says as much about Wikipedia's ChicagoMercantile
porn trafficker and Jewish Zionist Jimbo Wales who allows Wikipedia to
be censorored by Zionists such as whoever didn't like the truth about
Rahm Emanuel's father's Israeli terrorist past but also Wales allows
Wikipedia to be used by various stock selling 'public companies' for
fraudulent promotion of their worthless shares.

And while Gary Weiss is the first to cry 'anti-Semite' whenever he is
criticised,it is paradoxical to note that his editing alias on
Wikipedia,or at leat one,was 'Mantanmoreland',which is made up from the
name of a black or African American actor of the 1950's Mantan Moreland !
For grown white man who claims to be a Semite,using a deceasesd black
actors name to commit and promote stock fraud on Wikipedia is as low as you can get.

Rawstory.com should be very careful about allowing a known stock fraudster masquerading as a serios journalist such as Gary WEISS FROM USING THEIR SITE FOR HI OWN SELF SERVING DISINFO.

Weiss like his supposed nemesis Ron Paul and Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com for that matter are all connected to stock fraud and the fraudulent Baltimore money stealing and laundering operation Overstock.com with its connections to CIA as well as UK elite such as Lord William Rees-Mogg and the Rothschild crime family.They have all spread lies about a made up term called 'naked short selling' to distract from real stock fraud and insiders manipulation of stock shares.

...............

22 Aug 2006 – I hadn't check out my wiki page in a long time, so i go on there and ... If Mantanmoreland truly is Gary Weiss, is it ethical for a journalist to ... “Accidental billionnaire Mark Cuban is the master of using his blog and email to show ...

As for Ron Paul who like Gary Weiss is also a big fan the of deceased hateful Russian white woman and Zionist Ayn Rand who erroneously thought she was a Semite, but superior to Arab Semites.Ron Pauk also is connected to James Dale Davidson's and Bill Bonner's and UK Lord William Rees-Mogg's and Porter Stansberry's Agora Inc stock fraud and money laundering and gold touting operation,Agora Inc, that Gary Weiss covers up for and censors James Dale Davidson's Wikipedia biography for.Agora is also CIA connected and also appears to be Rothschild crime family connected as well.Certainly Agora Inc.'s Lord William Rees-Mogg is Rothschild connected and among their long history of war and financial crimes they also helped finance Israeli ICTS International that 'gusarded' Logan Airport Boston on 9/11/01.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has lied about unnamed stocks being 'naked shorted' to the SEC and only the neccessity of naming companies he held shares in to get federal funds for his presidential campaign led to his disclosure of one penny stock he held shares in called POIG that lied about its shares being 'naked shorted'.But this is no problem because both ex SEC Chair Chris Cox as well as his Barack Obama selelected replacement and Bernie Madoff cronie Mary Schapiro have lied about stocks being 'naked shoreted' as well ! And this fraudulent claim has benefited Israeli government connected securities and corporate saboteurs in the U.S. stock fraud 'business' such as the Grin or Grinshpon brothers David,Abraham and Eugene who are in turn connected to Israeli Austrian billionaire and money launderer Martin Schlaff.So not only is self proclaimed Ayn Rand authority Gary Weiss a crook and a fraud but so is Ayn Rand admirer Ron Paul.I think that says as much for Ayn Rand herself as it does for them but her own statements and beliefs below only confirm that she should have been made to stay in Russia or allowed to emigrate to Israel rather than being given free entrance to the U.S. to spew her right wing Zionist BS and given a very large soapbox to stand on and interfere in U.S. politics in favor of greed,lies, and the state of Israel.

AynRand commented on his presidency in 1969 during the Q&A period of her Ford Hall Forum talk “Apollo and Dionysus,” when Richard Nixon was president. She said that though she is not an apologist for the Nixon administration:

“I think Nixon is a great improvement over his predecessors, several of them, including Eisenhower.”[3]

The following article appeared in Human Events magazine, issue dated September 1, 1960. The illustrations are from a different periodical and dated 1957.

This below from a right wing website by someone who seems to have an Italian like name but looks like a German Jew.:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8339

''Just watched a fascinating 2-hour doco on Henry Kissinger on National
Geographic. It was more interesting for what it reiterated about Nixon
than about Kissinger, who was rather dull by comparison, and a
sycophant.
''Even though she had him well tagged, Ayn Rand voted for Nixon. Twice. Against Humphrey and McGovern....''

J.F.K.—High Class Beatnik?

by AynRand

The first question to ask of a Presidential candidate is:
does he regard the American voters as adult, responsible human beings
who need all the specific knowledge he can give them, in order to pass
judgment on crucial issues—or does he regard them as blind masses,
incapable of connecting two paragraphs within the same speech, seeking
to be taken by any leader who’ll relieve them of the responsibility of
decision?
The keynote of Senator Kennedy’s acceptance speech is that there
exists a “New Frontier” which requires that we elect him to the
Presidency of the United States. It is, therefore, important that we
understand the exact nature of that New Frontier. Here is his
description of it: “We stand today on the edge of a new frontier—the
frontier of the Nineteen Sixties—the frontier of unknown opportunities
and perils—the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and unfilled threats.”
This sounds impressive, until one notices that instead of saying:
“the frontier of the Nineteen Sixties,” one could say: “The frontier of
the Nineteen-Fifties” (or “the Eighteen-Thirties” or “the
Seventeen-Forties”) and that the rest of the sentence would be equally
applicable. In fact, there is no decade of history to which he would not be applicable. So the only specific thing Senator Kennedy has told us about his “New Frontier” is the date. If he meant something more than what any calendar could tell us, what did he mean?
The answer is scattered through his speech like the pieces of a
jigsaw puzzle that the listener has to assemble. “We must prove all over
again to a watching world . . . ” says Senator Kennedy,
“whether this nation—conceived as it is with its freedom of choice, its
breath of opportunity, its range of alternatives—can compete with a
single-minded advance of the Communist system. Can a nation organized
and governed such as ours endure?”
Senator Kennedy does not answer that question directly. But if one puts together the scattered half-answers, they add up to a loud: “No.”
If any listener was left uneasy, with the dimly anxious impression that
the American system was being obliterated in that speech, you will find
the reasons listed below.
“Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom,” says Senator Kennedy,
“promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin
Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But
the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises—it is a set
of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American
people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, it
appeals to our pride, not our security—it holds out the promise of more
sacrifice, instead of more security.”
Sacrifice—of what and to whom? Senator Kennedy does not specify.
Now remember that Woodrow Wilson’s policy plunged the United States
into World War I and, instead of “making the world safe for democracy,”
as promised, it brought into existence three new “economic and
political frameworks”: Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany.
Franklin Roosevelt’s policy plunged the United States into World War II
and, instead of achieving the “Four Freedoms,” as promised, it
surrendered one-third of the world’s population into slavery to
Communist Russia. In both cases, the results were the exact opposite of
the promises.If a man held those promises as his political goal, such a
record would make him pause and reconsider those policies. He would
ask: haven’t the American people sacrificed enough? Have their enormous
sacrifices of blood, wealth and effort brought about a better world—or a
chronic state of crises, emergencies and ever greater dangers, and a
growing spread of dictatorships? And, asking it, he would repudiate those policies as a ghastly failure.
But if a man approved of these actual results, if he held these results—not the verbal promises—as his political goal, he would not repudiate those policies.
Senator Kennedy
does not repudiate those policies. He claims them and declares his
intention to carry them farther—but, this time, without the hampering
pretense of any promises. Farther—where? He does not specify. He is
scornful of “security,” of “normalcy,” of “private comfort.”
He is scornful of “those who wish to hear more assurances of a golden
future, where taxes are always low and subsidies are always high.” He
envisions a government that takes, but does not give—takes taxes, but gives no subsidies, takes sacrifices, but gives no promises.
He is scornful of the Republican party as “the party of the past—the
party of memory. . . . Their pledge is to the same status-quo—and today
there is no status quo.” Since the American past is the political system of freedom (and Free Enterprise), it is this system that Senator Kennedy
regards as only a memory. If “there is no status quo,” if we are a
country with a dead past and no political system—what does Senator Kennedy intend to create for us?
“All over the world,” he says, “particularly in the newer nations,
young men are coming to power—men who are not bound by the traditions of
the past—men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and
rivalries—young men who can cast off the old slogans and the old
delusions.”
Young men like Castro—or Nasser—or Lumumba?
There are no young men anywhere in today’s world who are coming to
power to establish a system of political freedom. But there are many
varieties of ambitious, power-lusting young statists of the
Communist-Fascist kind, who have no political program save the use of
violence, and no system, save the rule of brute force.
In the newer nations of the world, “the old slogans and the old
delusions”—which those young men “cast off”—belonged to various kinds of
old tyrannies (which they replace with new tyrannies of their own). But
in America “the old slogans and the old delusions” to be “cast off” are
the ideas and the principles of political freedom. And we ought to take
Senator Kennedy’s word for the fact that he has cast them off.
“The only valid test of leadership,” he states, “is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously.”
To lead—where?
Senator Kennedy does not specify.To a civilized mind, that “where?” is the first test of leadership, by which one judges the qualifications of any would-be leader. But to Senator Kennedy,
“vigor” is the only qualification necessary. Yet the vigor of a
prizefighter is not the same thing as the vigor of a scientist—the vigor
of a thug is not the same thing as the vigor of a thinker—the vigor of a
dictatorship is not the same thing as the vigor of the President of a
free country.
Which did he mean? Senator Kennedy does not specify.
“That is the question of the New Frontier,” says Senator Kennedy.
“That is the choice that our nation must make—a choice that lies not
merely between two men and two parties, but between the public interest
and private comfort—between national greatness and national
decline—between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere
of ‘normalcy’—between dedication or mediocrity.”
Does this awaken any echoes in your memory? Do you remember who
regarded “normalcy” as “mediocrity,” scorned “private comfort” in the
name of “national greatness,” and demanded the production of guns instead of butter? It was Goering.
And this seems to be the key to the riddle of Senator Kennedy.
Yes, he is opposed to communism. But is he opposed to it as an advocate
of the American system—or as an advocate of some “new,” home-grown
version of fascism which he seeks the power to establish?
His is not the line or the style of an advocate of the American
system. The American system does not regard “private comfort” and
“public interest” as opposites: it regards the “public interest” of a
country as consisting of the “private comfort” of its citizens.
The American system has achieved the highest standard of living ever
known on earth, and its progress has raised that standard ever higher
for all people on all economic levels. But that is what Senator Kennedy
calls “national decline” and “the stale, dank atmosphere of
‘normalcy.’” What, then, is the “abnormalcy” he advocates? What does he
regard as more efficient, more practical, more conducive to national
greatness? There is only one alternative: the “single-mindedness” of a
dictatorship.
His is not the line or the style of a liberal, nor of a
middle-of-the-road’er, nor even a naive, old-fashioned Socialist—all of
whom profess to hold the welfare, the comfort, the security of their citizens as the standard of the nation’s greatness.
When a man extols “leadership”—leadership without
direction—leadership without any stated purpose, program or
ideal—leadership for the sake of leadership—you may be sure that you are
hearing the voice of a man motivated by power-lust. It is specifically
the power-lust of the Fascist variety, because the Communists promised
their victims an alleged social ideal, while the Fascists offer nothing
but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.”And if one keeps this in mind, the nature of the “New
Frontier” becomes intelligible, and the figure emerging from the
Democratic National Convention seems to step out into a different light.
Is it the figure of a bright young man, or is it the figure of an
irresponsible young beatnik, a high-class beatnik, who, with unlimited means at his disposal, chose the power-game, as others choose hot-rod racing—for kicks?
That figure seems to suggest the image of a cynical young man, reared
in an authoritarian tradition, in the post-New Deal era, who,
substituting insolence for self-confidence, seeing nothing but the range
of the immediate moment, brashly proclaims that political freedom is
out, dead, old-fashioned or “square,” that dictatorships are here to
stay, that the rule of brute force is the mode of the future—and who
longs to get into the big league of the muscle-men, to run “a race for
mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side
of space and the inside of men’s minds”—to “compete with the
single-minded advance of the Communist system”—to compete in the art of
enslavement, expropriation, mass slaughter and military conquest—and to
justify it all by means of a mysterious “New Frontier” that turns out to
be nothing but the shabby old “Wave of the Future.”

[Web site proprietor’s note: the text above has been corrected to add
two end-quote characters where these failed to appear in the Human Events
published version. I have retained the text as it appeared in the
magazine insofar as “status quo” having a hyphen within it the first
time the term is used but not the second and third.]
[Second web site proprietor’s note: the references within the article to Nasser and Lumumba concern African leaders of the time. Follow the links for more information.]

This page was prepared and uploaded after an examination of the
pertinent copyright documents (on file at the United States Copyright
Office) and follow-up endeavors undertaken to ensure that I committed no
violation of the rights of copyright holders.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Ayn Rand on Israel

Arabs: Savages that resent the civilized Israelis. So sayeth the guru Ayn Rand. The video below shows what Palestine looked like before the Zionist takeover.

When
Ayn Rand spoke at the Ford Hall Forum she frequently got asked about
Israel – whose supporters are anything if not vociferous – during the
question and answer periods, which were open to any question.

Her reply would go along the following lines: I support Israel; though Israel is a socialist country, [2] in that region of the world Israel is the vanguard of civilization.

In
other words, the gray of Israel is white compared to the surrounding
near-black of Arabia. There is something to be said for that kind of
argument, but of course it fails when the gray gets dark enough.

Did
Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was? The year she wrote her essay,
1975, was long before Israeli torture came to light in the 1993 New York Times exposé, over 20 years after her death. 1975 was long before Israel’s massacre of Beirut in 1982, the year of her death. [3]

Ayn
Rand believed that Israel was America’s ally. Did she know how
treacherous Israel really was? 1975 was long before the exposure of the
Pollard Affair in 1985, three years after her death. Not to mention the
USS Liberty attack (though it occurred in 1967 it was not made public
until 1980), and many other acts by Israel against America. [4] And long
before the publication of such exposés as Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of
Deception (1990) and Ari Ben-Menashe’s Profits of War (1992).

It
is far more probable that Ayn Rand was ignorant of Israel’s brutality
and deceit than that she thought Israel’s brutality and deceit were
comparatively unimportant.

Still,
she must be held partly responsible for her ignorance. With some effort
even in 1975 one could break through the cloud of propaganda thrown out
by Israel and its worshippers. Her mistake was surrounding herself with
people like Leonard Peikoff, and – very likely – relying on their
research, or lack of it. [5]

Even
if Israel were truly civilized and our ally, it would not justify
forcing American citizens to pay for Israel’s support. Ayn Rand did not
have John Galt say:

“I
swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the
sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine ... uh ...
except in the case of Israel.”

Israel
is no exception, and one would like to think Ayn Rand did not make it
one. She was mistaken about the nature of Israel and sincerely believed
that helping the Israeli government was in our interest. A mistake
preserved in amber which ARI’s (Ayn Rand Institute) supporters bring
forth at every opportunity. [6]

2 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Fair dinkum. Back in those days I knew where Palestine was and
understood that "israel" was a country next to it. I thought they were
just two dirty little countries with a boring border dispute. It wasn't
until I saw a modern map with "israel" wiping Palestine off the map that
I understood what my classmates had been protesting against.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Ron Paul, "Ayn Rand" and "The Trust"

Christopher Jon Bjerkneshttp://www.jewishracism.comhttp://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com
Ron Paul, like Alan Greenspan, was heavily influenced by the Russian Jewess "Ayn Rand".
"Rand" was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia,
in 1905. I became acquainted with Rosenbaum's subversive activities
while battling against one of the most ardent modern proponents of her
philosophies, a radical Zionist Jew who many years ago proposed the
nuclear annihilation of Iran, and who defended Einstein's reputation
with falsehoods and smears.
"Ayn Rand" came to America from Russia presenting herself as if a radical anti-Communist. Hers was the typical modus operandi of Bolshevik operatives working for an official Soviet organization known as "The Trust".
These agents, many of them crypto-Jews, came to the West in search of
anti-Communists and infiltrated anti-Communist organizations and Western
intelligence agencies. Their objective was to forward the interests of
Communism by creating a controlled opposition to Communism which would
serve the interests of the Communists while pretending to fight them.
They also subverted all authentic anti-Communist movements.
Rand
promoted negative stereotypes of women, attacked homosexuals, advocated
laissez faire Capitalism, and taught selfishness and disregard for
humanity. She opposed charity and objected to any governmental
assistance for those without means. She wanted to place America on the
ruinous Gold Standard.
Rosenbaum's "good advice" to the blacks
only held them back by preventing them from using the political process
to forward their interests. Her good advice to the Goyim only held the
Gentiles back, by making them selfish and irresponsible, and also by
preventing them from using their government to better themselves and
their neighbors. She taught the Gentiles to hate the poor, undermine the
middle class and concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthiest
Jews, all in the name of "fighting Communism". Her "good advice" pitted
Goys against one another at the time when they should have been helping
one another to become successful. She taught Gentiles to shun any
efforts to cooperate in their communities and improve the lot of one
another.
While Jews famously provided communal support and
charitable assistance for their own, Rosenbaum helped to create the
destructive "me generation" attitudes in Americans, which undermined the
good nature of Christianity, weakened communities and inhibited the
advancement of the poor and middle class. Her beliefs also fostered the
drug culture, pornography and the destruction of public education. While
Jews promoted strong community ties, Rosenbaum taught the Goyim to be
selfish and "independent", meaning without any sense of social
responsibility or communal cohesion.
While Jews wisely took from
the public schools all they could, Frederick T. Gates, an agent of World
Jewry, used Rockefeller/Rothschild money to finance institutions of
higher learning which benefitted Jews, while promoting the idea that
Gentile students should be readied for factory work and work as field
hands and farmers. While World Jewry took the monies they stole from
Gentiles and distributed them charitably to their own, Rosenbaum taught
Gentiles to abandon all social responsibility, obsessively focus on
themselves, and destroy all government institutions which better the lot
of the American middle class and poor.
Alisa Rosenbaum's
"anti-Communist" philosophies weakened Americans opening the door for
Communism. I suspect she was an agent of "The Trust".
Enter Ron
Paul, the "Libertarian" who wants to erode all the powers of the Federal
Government which protect us from the Rothschild model of laissez faire
Capitalism, in the name of "freedom". Ron Paul equates personal freedom
with "economic freedom", meaning the "freedom" of the Jewish Capitalists
to steal our wealth with their monopolies, pollute our environment with
their greed, fill our streets with drug dealers, and rob the nation of
all our gold and other wealth in the name of creating "sound money".
He
would increase the advantages of the wealthy by taking away all public
benefits to our citizens which would provide each American with the
opportunity to have an education, obtain medical care, drink clean water
and breathe clean air. Do not be duped by these agents of World Jewry
who are trying to teach you to destroy yourself and your nation in the
name of "freedom". We need to do whatever it takes to provide education
to our citizens, protect our environment, and tend to the needs of those
who need our help, including using our government as a means to secure
and promote these vital interests without which personal freedom cannot
exist and ceases to have real meaning.
We need to take back our
wealth from the Jewish bankers who have exploited Capitalism as a means
to syphon off the wealth of Gentiles and leave them poor and uneducated.
We need to take the press and educational system out of the hands of
World Jewry and create public schools which teach real history and
honest social responsibility. Ron Paul's Ayn Rand selfishness will wipe
away all Christian values of charity, community and family. It leads
impoverished fools to blame the poor for their poverty and celebrate the
"right" of rich Jews to own the media, run the government and suck off
the wealth, labor and health of the general American public—the supposed
"right" of rich Jews to educate their youth while the young of the
Gentiles make heroes of thugs and celebrate ignorance and poverty as if
the virtues of those who are "free".
Government exists as a
collective force. That is not Communism, which places the State above
the individual. It is instead the right of the individual to join with
his fellows in a common defense against a hostile and alien group bent
on exploiting and destroying the individual. We need a strong Federal
Government run by us to help us in our fight against the laissez faire
Jewish Capitalist bankers. Capitalism should serve us, and where and
when it fails to do so, we should exercise our freedom to organize
through our government to set things right. We should not be averse to
helping one another. It is our duty to help one another. It is only
World Jewry which wants us to abandon our responsibilities to our
society.
Know "Ayn Rand" and you will know Ron Paul and what a danger he poses to our freedom. Know the machinations of the Bolshevik "Trust"
and you will know why the supposedly anti-Zionist and anti-Communist
movements in America have always been farces headed by Jews and funded
with Jewish money, and why they promote Ron Paul. Understand why no
advancements are made in the fight against Zionism and why these front
organizations are such an embarrassment to authentic anti-Zionists, why
they did nothing during the Israeli attack on Lebanon, why they do
nothing to rescue the Palestinians, why they have done nothing to
impeach Bush and Cheney, etc. etc. etc. Know also why at critical
moments they stage fights among their members and subvert momentum and
misinform and mislead wherever possible.They want to sucker us
into a gold system and into giving over all of our wealth to World
Jewry. They want to open us up to exploitation the way Russia was
exploited under the laissez faire Capitalism of Yeltsin and the Jewish
Oligarchs. They want to ruin education for the poor and middle class and
make our youth into ignorant drug addicts. They want to pit Americans
against Mexicans, whites against blacks, straights against gays, men
against women, etc. and stand in the way of every organized effort we
make to better ourselves as a nation and as individuals. They want us to
fear making our government stronger in our fight against World Jewry,
and they attempt to confound and confuse every effort to make our
government truly ours. They are the modern day descendants of the
Bolshevik "Trust". Trust them not!